waters, and that therefore Moses intended to show that it was a solid dome. If so, why does he not explain to us how the clouds were to be seen through it? Are we to understand that the dome was transparent, so that the clouds could be seen through it? Is it to be supposed that the sublime spectacle of the apparent movement of the stars round the earth should have failed to impress this Hebrew Newton? If he had observed this, why does he not explain how it could have taken place consistently with the idea of the existence of a solid dome resting upon immoveable pillars?

If it be answered that the account of Moses' cosmogony is consistent with the cosmogony of the ancients generally, we answer, it may be so: one tissue of puerilities may be consistent in itself; but it is absurd to suppose a statement of the veriest puerilities to be consistent with the enunciation of such truths as it is inconceivable Moses could have guessed at.

Once more, by what effort of human imagination could this Hebrew Newton have conceived such a sublime thought as that contained in verse 26? "And God said, Let us make man," &c. Why should he have passed out of the simple declaration, God said, Let the thing be, to the more wonderful and mysterious one, "God said, Let us make." Without putting a violence upon the plain meaning of language, we must explain the image of God as referring to the whole man, alike to his body as to his soul? Are we to suppose that the idea brought before us here could have been conceived by a man's imagination? Can we suppose it possible that a man could have imagined that in the Godhead there should be one Person ordained to be the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person, and that in the image of this Person man was formed? If we suppose that he had been favoured with a vision of this Person, we could understand his representing man as formed in His image, but not otherwise. But then, if he had been favoured with such a vision, he must have been taught of God. Without such an hypothesis it is utterly inconceivable that he could have invented such a sublime wonder as the formation of man in the likeness of the Creator.

Look at it from what side we will, it is difficult, it is impossible, to conceive that Genesis i. can contain the fine-spun imaginings of a mere man, however wise he might be.

This idea is still more absurd if it can be shown that the order of creation here described corresponds with the order of the various periods of creation as discovered by geological investigations.

Now it has been admitted on all hands that these investigations of modern science appear to conflict with the account given by Moses, and certainly do conflict with the formerly received interpretations of that account. In answer, we are

told that the question to be first determined is, whether our interpretation of the account be correct, or whether we have given to the language of Moses a meaning which it does not of necessity convey. This position has been attacked as entirely reprehensible; but is there any really sound reason for thus repudiating it? Are we to suppose it impossible that any writer of the Bible should have given utterance to sentiments of a deeper meaning than he conceived at the time of utterance, and of a higher thought than his cotemporaries could reach to? or are we to suppose that the progress of time, the occurrence of circumstances, and even the discoveries of science, were not intended to throw increasing light upon any portion of revealed truth?

Are there no dicta of man's genius to be quoted, which evidently have borne a deeper meaning than the original authors intended? Are there no inventions of man's skill which have been turned to purposes higher and more extended than those the original inventors designed?

And if man's unaided genius has conceived notions and ideas of greater grasp and higher reach than their own conceptions. originally aimed at, surely it is not too much to suppose that men taught of Heaven might have uttered truths the full length and breadth of which themselves did not realize at the time of. utterance. And why should we fear to allow that God did intend that the progress of time should throw a light upon parts of His word—a light which has, and will have, the effect of showing men a path not divergent from, but convergent towards, the Fountain of truth and life?

Some interpreters of Genesis i. have supposed that the narrative of the creation is an account of what Moses saw in vision. There is certainly much probability in this view.

It has been already argued that there is reason from analogy to expect that revelation would primarily appeal to the eye rather than to the ear.

We are positively told that when God directed Moses to build a tabernacle, he showed him a pattern of the building upon the mount. We find also the Bible concluded with the account of a vision. Agreeable to all this it is to suppose that Moses in Genesis i. gives an account of a vision which God made to him.

In confirmation of this view we have the work of the fourth day. There he speaks of the sun and moon as two greater lights; now, if he speaks of what God told him, there is unquestionably a difficulty in his calling that, viz. the moon, a greater light, which we know to be a very small body compared with other celestial bodies. This difficulty, however, is not insurmountable, because the writer may be speaking of these bodies, the sun and moon, not as they are absolutely in their

bulk, but simply as regards the amount of light which they convey to the earth; and of course when compared with the stars as light-giving bodies, they are undoubtedly greater lights. But the difficulty vanishes if we suppose that Moses relates what he saw in vision, for then he necessarily speaks of the sun and moon as in every respect two greater lights; greater in bulk compared with the stars as seen from the earth, as well as greater in respect of the amount of the light which they supply to the earth. But whichever way we interpret the term "greater lights," the expression occurring in the very commencement of the Bible is valuable, because thus is indicated to us the manner in which it was God's design that natural phenomena should be spoken of throughout His word: viz., not as these things are in their abstract state, but as they are relatively to man. The language employed about them is the language of sight. To this agree intimations in Scripture tending to show that it is the design of God to tell us only so much of things and purposes as is needful to lead to practical results, and no more. Of other worlds and their inhabitants, of His future purposes, of the hereafter condition of men, He has revealed so much as is required to lead to action, but nothing to satisfy curiosity. The language descriptive of Himself and His own nature is evidently, in a great degree, such language, addressed to our understanding by appealing to what we see in others and feel in ourselves; and doubtless is the best calculated to enable us to rise up to the high idea of the Godhead.

It must be by no means forgotten that neither geology, nor astronomy, nor chemistry, nor any other science, have as yet exhausted their resources, and unfolded to men all the arcana of nature which they may yet lay bare. Astronomy was once supposed to shake the truth of revelation. Geology has been supposed to do the same; possibly some future insight into some new secrets of nature may hereafter be supposed to assail the truth of revelation.

Would it not be for the happiness and comfort of believers in revelation to accept at once this maxim?-That God has spoken of such things as are the objects of scientific investigation, not as they are essentially in themselves, but as they are in their uses and advantages to us. The language which speaks of them is rather relatively than absolutely true.

But while we are yet learners in the school of nature, not having yet opened all her treasures of knowledge, is it time to take the language of arrogant assumption, as though we had read from end to end the book of nature, and there were not a secret there with which we were not fully familiar? If we cannot perfectly see the reconciliation between revelation and science, let modesty, let self-diffidence, let the consciousness itself of a knowledge that is growing and progressive, not

stationary and exhausted, call us to pause and wait before we make our assertions and lay down our conclusions.

But to return to Genesis i.; let us admit that Moses relates a vision. We have referred to the different epochs of creative energy as marked out and defined by geology.

But, as far as we know, geology is silent about the actual state of the earth at the termination of one period and the commencement of another. Is it any forcing of scientific truth to suppose that the vision of Moses brings before us the earth as it was after these successive periods had passed away?

At this time it was wrapped in darkness. There is a difficulty here from this fact. The sun was not made to appear (whatever may be the meaning of the word set) above the earth till the fourth day.

Yet the animal remains of pre-Adamite date show the existence of eyes which must have required light as ours do. Many of the animals, too, must have had for their development a far higher temperature than the earth enjoys now. Therefore it is argued the world must have had the benefit of a sun as we have. Grant this; but are we assured, does science prove it necessary, that the light which the pre-Adamite animals enjoyed emanated from the identical sun which we enjoy?

Is it not within the range of possibility that the earth may have passed from the influence of one sun to another, as it is supposed comets have done?

Are we bound to conclude that the law of gravitation, as now enounced and understood, has been at all times the law by which all the movements of the heavenly bodies have been regulated? Is it impossible to conceive that a law not contradictory of, but circumscribing this law, may exist, and may be discovered, which may explain away all the difficulties we feel, either in supposing that the earth may have passed from one system to another; or had appeared to be poised in space for a short season in a state of darkness, being removed from the perceptible influence of any sun?

Is it impossible to suppose that Moses saw in vision the earth thus poised in the midst of space and wrapped in darkness? He would then hear the voice of God proclaiming, "Let there be light." Should the light have shone from one direction and the earth have been possessed of rotatory motion, day and night would have been at once produced.

The second day he sees the waters lifted up aud the clouds formed; and between the clouds above and the sea beneath he witnesses the insertion of the ether, the clear expanse of heaven. From this statement about the formation of the firmament, it is clear that there was either no atmosphere, or one too thin and rarified to support the clouds. And as air, as well as light, must have been necessary for animal life before, there must at once have been a withdrawal both of the light and the sur

rounding atmosphere. How this was effected, science does not teach us. If rain had fallen in past days, there must have been clouds; but by the withdrawal of the atmosphere, these must have collapsed and mingled with the seas. It was the work, therefore, of the second day to separate them again by the reinsertion of the atmosphere. Whether Moses fully understood, or not, all that we understand by an atmosphere, or whether his own notions of celestial phenomena confused his ideas of the vision which he saw, is nothing to us; the only question is, did he relate what he actually saw? On the evening of the fourth day Moses would see the light of the first day for the last time. God might have brought the earth within the range of its present orbit; and as night came on, the eyes of Moses might for the first time have gazed on the magnificent spectacle of the starry hosts and the moon walking in her brightness; and when morning dawned, instead of the light which he had previously seen diffused over the earth, he would behold the splendid spectacle of the sun rising in unclouded majesty.

The foregoing remarks upon the first chapter of Genesis do not pretend to anything more than to offer some suggestions which may tend to remove the difficulties which some thoughtful persons feel on the subject of the reconciliation of science with revelation.

A CLERGYMAN.

IS THE COMMUNION TABLE AN ALTAR?

Cornwood Vicarage, Ivy Bridge, South Devon,

4th June, 1861.

REV. SIR,-Permit me to observe, that the writer of Article VI. in the June Number of the Christian Observer has apparently forgotten one place in Holy Scripture which materially affects his argument. In page 472 the writer asks, "Why, then, did our reformers, when they had become better instructed in the letter and the spirit of the New Testament, carefully and deliberately exclude the word altar from the communion rubrics?"... "the piece of church furniture, &c. . . . is a table and not an altar."

In Heb. xiii. 10, the Christian apostle says, We have an altar," &c.

As churchmen, I conceive we have the letter of Scripture, and the spirit also, in favour of using the term altar. The reformers cannot exclude the use of the term altar, if Holy Scripture sanctions it. St. Paul uses the terms "the Lord's table" and "altar.' Why should Christians now not use both I will not enter further into the writer's argument, but refer him to a former bishop of Exeter, bishop Sparrow, who, in his Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer, holds

terms?